Workload has recently been reduced where I work, so boss said we have to take it in turns to take the day off ‘unpaid’ as he cant afford to pay us to do nothing. can he do this?
Sorry to say, But at least everyone has the same raw deal, Rather than NO MONEY he is treating everyone the same it seems, and such everyone gets a wage.
Sorry if it seems RAW but would you rather job losses or a cut in wages? I know which I choose
Your Boss needs over the Year some Agency Worker who he could lay-off after Xmas,and keeping Company Drivers working.
He is just “too fair” to avoid closing down,or “winding you up” to keep Profit high
Anywhy.Job has priority and working for an Agency,…?
He could have just laid five of you off or asked you to take a 20% pay cut for the same amount of work. At least you are getting some of the bonus for running out for the morning job, he could have just gave you the fifty quid flat, and if it’s only four or five hours work then I would say fair enough. As for the basic/bonus holiday pay you knew the wages and set up when you took the job, being stuck with that kind of setup is one of the pitfalls of the “only look at the top line” school of thought. At least you all still have a job.
If you’re contracted for 5 days then you should be paid 5 days, as for the holiday pay that’s legal because It’s a thing some companies do. Just read your contract carefully and maybe seek legal advice .
Stay at work, get paid something! On the quieter days, look for a better deal.
Having your hours cut per day is worse than being given an entire day off, as you’re not available to work elsewhere, AND have to still waste the same amount of fuel getting to work.
There’s another downside that few consider as well - If this “arrangement” becomes ongoing, then if the firm later makes people redundant, the pot multiplier will be based on the new shorter working week I would have thought!?
Personally, I would take redundancy at the old contract rate, rather than accept the thin end of the wedge, likely being laid off a few months later for a lot less. - And I did! 
Once a business starts cutting pay, I’ve never heard of one recovering to the point that all lost backpay was later returned with interest to the workforce - someone correct me if I’m wrong here, as I take a very dim view to “Cuts” of any description looking at the sheer waste in nearly every industry these days…
A “recovering successful” firm might cut the workforce down to a 4 day week for say, a year. To catch-up in year 2, you’d need to be both put back on a 5 day week AND given a one-off 24% payrise to replace what was lost, and catch back up with inflation. This 24% is what I suggest has “never happened”. You might be given a one-off 5% so-called “Inflation busting” payrise instead, which is a complete joke, and makes the workforce losers forever.
Inflation in cost of living and deflation in wages is the biggest cause of theft on the planet, because people didn’t realise they were being robbed, not even understanding the rule of 72 most of them…
I’d never heard of this rule so here it is for all the others who are equally in the dark. Useful.
Thanks for the advice, looks like a grin and bear it situation
Einstein once replied to the question “What is the most powerful force in the Universe?” with the retort “Compound Interest!”
Most of us realise that payday loans are a rip-off, but what isn’t so obvious in most people’s lives is the effect of compound inflation which still works to the rule of 72 in the same way, but with more stealth!
In the 1930’s, the government decided to Default the war loans from 1917. Of course, in politics this is unthinkable, so they didn’t call it a default - they changed the interest rate on the bonds from above the rate of inflation (5%) to below it (3.5%).
This doesn’t sound like a lot, but as a direct result of this apparently minor change (so they didn’t have to call it a default anymore, thus saving their political arses!) anyone who put their savings long term into the War loans as “their patriotic duty” found themselves losing over 99% of their investment by now! Yes, some people still hold such bonds, because they were also changed from “redeemable” on a certain date to “undated” at the same time as the rate change.
Divide the 1.5% compound annual loss into 72 and you get 48. In other words, by 1965 your war bonds have destroyed half the money you put into them. This is a guaranteed loss, with no chance of ever seeing a recovery - and people never realised they were being robbed by the Chaimberlain crooks because it is so subtle! Once you factor the rising rate of inflation after WWII on top, by today anyone still owning 1917 war stock sees it worth LESS than 1% of what it was originally bought for.
£1000 worth in 1917 would buy 3 benchmark houses. £1000 today after 95 years of losing 1.5% a year is around 1/300th of a house in London, and still 1/25th of a house in the most rundown places in the northeast.
If you live in London, have wages increased 900 fold in 95 years? - Nope. Average 1917 wages were about a quid a week. A city worker might get £900 a week now, but most of us in London are on a lot less than that eh?
At the other end of the scale, the suggestion is if you live in a rundown area of Newcastle, then taking home £75 a week makes you bang on the inflation-adjusted average for the region in terms of house prices & wages… Seems hard to believe, but there it is. 
Windseer,
Using house prices to measure inflation give false results. We all know that London prices are out of reach for most people.
Inflation works both ways too: When I bought my present house I could barely afford the mortgage payments. I knew that inflation (in the guise of regular annual pay increases) would soon erode the cost of those payments to a more affordable level. The problem we are all facing today is that even though while price inflation remains fairly low, wage inflation is almost non-existent (unless you are a banker or on a inflation linked pension).
It seems that most people behave just like the Labour government, by splashing out when times are good, and not saving for a rainy day.
i would try to help my boss secure more work.
it’s not hard to find. but sometimes the boss has so much on his mind, he just can’t get a grip on things, but dosn’t want to ask for help.
DONT BE MUGGED OFF seek legal NOW
topmixer11:
DONT BE MUGGED OFF seek legal NOW
that’s right, seek legal, sue the boss, make him bankrupt. lose your job.
but for [zb] sake, don’t help him, yourself, or your colleagues. 
Santa:
Windseer,Using house prices to measure inflation give false results. We all know that London prices are out of reach for most people.
Inflation works both ways too: When I bought my present house I could barely afford the mortgage payments. I knew that inflation (in the guise of regular annual pay increases) would soon erode the cost of those payments to a more affordable level. The problem we are all facing today is that even though while price inflation remains fairly low, wage inflation is almost non-existent (unless you are a banker or on a inflation linked pension).
It seems that most people behave just like the Labour government, by splashing out when times are good, and not saving for a rainy day.
I got mine under the same idea, unfortunately, I can still barely afford it.
In 2003, I was driving a bus for £10 / hr, yesterday I drove a Stobart truck for £8 / hr and got docked 45 mins of that to boot (on a 15hr day), the fuel to get me to work back in 2003 was around 15 quid a week, a week of running to Trafford Park and back - if I drove sedately - would be around 60 quid or so per week.
This country has become a joke in the last 7yrs or so, I think up until 2005, I was doing ok, since 2005 the work in busses and coaches went to crap, the wages plummeted, I worked xmas day 2006 for single rate for example as part of a rota , so I did my HGV in 2007, lots of jobs advertised between 9.50 and 10 per hour at the time, ok most were agency, but even on agency I struggle to beat 8 quid an hour now, and the old days of time + half after 8, on sats and double time on suns has all disappeared too.
Where I work the work has becomne very short and it has been required to place drivers on ‘Lay Off’ a day at a time. So generally a driver could lose a day a week. This is in their contracts so nothing untoward going on.
It was expected to be a short term solution whilst more work was found but there wasn’t any way of knowing for sure how long this would last.
The lay off was shared around to the best that it could be done. For the first 5 days of lay off they would get Statutory Guaranteed Pay. The planners did their best to be fair including swapping drivers around different vehicles so all could have a go at the LEZ etc etc
Problem was - some drivers kicked up such a fuss, ranting and raving, shouting the odds that we simply couldn’t take it. We stopped the lay off and made 5 of them redundant instead.
No more fuss. The remaining drivers now get more or less full hours and 5 lost their jobs.
Funny thing was - even though a fair legal system was used to select those that were made redundant - it was the same gob-■■■■■■ that were causing all the agro. They must have preferred no work to some work eh 
All the management were trying to do is keep everyone in some work and try to sort the problem out - but some just won’t listen
limeyphil:
topmixer11:
DONT BE MUGGED OFF seek legal NOWthat’s right, seek legal, sue the boss, make him bankrupt. lose your job.
but for [zb] sake, don’t help him, yourself, or your colleagues.
YEAH THATS RIGHT take it in the ■■■ great britain screw ya boss etc cos they will you too survive what nxt take drivers on under goverment job seekers GET out and find another job plenty about i turned one down friday
topmixer11:
limeyphil:
topmixer11:
DONT BE MUGGED OFF seek legal NOWthat’s right, seek legal, sue the boss, make him bankrupt. lose your job.
but for [zb] sake, don’t help him, yourself, or your colleagues.YEAH THATS RIGHT take it in the ■■■ great britain screw ya boss etc cos they will you too survive what nxt take drivers on under goverment job seekers GET out and find another job plenty about i turned one down friday
doyle
I turned one down. I have never claimed dole.
By law, when we stand down one of our men for the day, we have to pay them £21.50 for a lay off day, we havent had to do it for a while luckily, but im fairley sure this would be law, as i try not to give it away, but do like to be straight.Times are tough out there, the comment about helping your boss isnt wrong, i have never worked so hard to earn so little, sometimes you feel your just keeping going to keep decent blokes in jobs.theres aways hope though !¬